It seems some posters here are missing an important point about engagement rings: they are a gesture of financial commitment. The expensive price tag is a feature, not a bug that can be solved by creating chemically-identical but inexpensive alternatives.
If lab-grown stones become the norm for ethical reasons, but they are priced too low, I can see culture shifting to new gestures of commitment.
My wife and I decided to build a house together instead of getting expensive rings and having a wedding. We paid $15 for a wedding, the rings were a little more.
I think it must be very easy to come up with ways to have productive financial commitment together. There must be all kinds of things you can do.
> I can see culture shifting to new gestures of commitment
Thank goodness. From a joint college account for future kids, the purchase of a home, or even just Treasuries in a joint trust, there is an infinity of superior options to shiny rocks from Central Africa.
If you have the money to burn on a symbol without any particular utility (and, usually, a fractional resale value that makes driving new car off the lot look like a relatively good investment), you may well also have the money to burn on a divorce lawyer.
Some other form of marriage bond could potentially pop up, I suppose, but meanwhile we have laws which aren't mere gestures of financial commitment, they're enforceable obligations.
Engagement rings are not a gesture of commitment, they are a gesture that you're willing to play in the status game and spend considerable resources to give your spouse the ability to signal that they are in possession of someone who is willing to spend considerable resources on them.
99.99% of people who buy the engagement rings are better off investing the funds and going with a fake shiny thing if they want to "fit in" with their peers, and just lie to people. Or they can inform others how little value status signaling provides them, especially if they don't have considerable assets to blow.
I'm sure the random person you're giving all your money to thinks it's a great gesture, but it's not doing anything for your wife.
It used to be true that women needed to own expensive jewelry - because they couldn't have their own bank accounts, so they needed something they could sell in an emergency. But diamonds are worthless and the price is a fiction.
>> The expensive price tag is a feature, not a bug...
>Feature? For who? The diamond industry?
Each couple is a world unto themselves, as such each is very different and equally unique. However, when it comes to large engagement stones like diamonds, the rings can generally serve three functions:
1) as a flaunting of the wealth of the suitor and the bride-to-be. Generally, you see this with people that are more about 'image' than 'substance'. People like the current US President who is notorious for his use of gold leaf, people that are in 'society' and need to be seen, people in the jewelry industry itself that can use the ring as an advertisement, etc.
2) as a psuedo-dowery for the marriage and the bride-to-be. Essentially, the suitor is 'pot committed', to borrow a poker term, and has a higher likelyhood of actually making it to the wedding as he has put a 'down-payment' on the bride-to-be. This is an extremely regressive stance on marriage, but it persists all the same. The bride-to-be also now has a lump-sum of money that that ring can be pawned off for in case the marriage is not preformed. Traditionally, if the ring was expensive enough, the couple could then start having intercourse and risk pregnancy as the bride-to-be could be assured that the suitor was now serious about marriage and would not run off after intercourse.
3) as a sign to others in society that they share the same values system and can be relied upon to perpeuate the culture too. This is something of a deal in religious communities and in family groups. By putting a lot of money up for such a ring, the couple shows that they are financially committed to the value system of others. This is also known as 'tradition'.
That's all well and good but why do the men have to pay the dowry? Used to be the woman's family was responsible for that, now they just have to pay for the wedding!
Yea, not sure how this is a feature. I want to prove my loyalty so I'll waste a bunch of what will soon be your money buying you a temporary ring?
I made an engagement ring from a coconut husk in about ten seconds and it did the trick just fine. No need to spend any money really, let alone the "three month's pay" rule of thumb that gets tossed around.
In many cultures the purpose of jewelry is to give the woman wealth independent of the husband. When she is a housewife with much less earning potential she will be completely dependent, and so the gifts of gold mitigate that.
Diamond though are a terrible way to store wealth. As soon as you walk out of the store they lose significant value, and they will only depreciate.
Diamonds and weddings make you poor in the process of showing off how rich you are; why not cut out the middleman and do things that show you're rich and still rich after having done them?
If the culture shifts to buying your girlfriend a car or a down payment on a condo or paying off her student loans, I will be so much happier.
We missed that memo. We’ve been married twice and neither time involved engagement rings. We needed to pay, you know, rent and stuff. We went to Vegas, got married by Elvis.
But generally by the bride's family towards the bride and the public. Sadly, I don't think this kind of public potlatch is in danger, it's a clear signal of class and the rich are getting richer.
If lab-grown stones become the norm for ethical reasons, but they are priced too low, I can see culture shifting to new gestures of commitment.